click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
got props. the clinton era rates which america will return to in january unless the fiscal cliff is resolved. it brought more revenues than at any point in the 1980s. thank you. [ applause ] >> grover! >> stephanie: norquist and maria commented this is a different environment than the 1990s. grover said we got four years of bad regulation, higher taxes. he wants to add more taxes to the tea party too. it will starve tea party i if obama pushes us over the cliff. [ screaming ] >> can't just wait for tea party three. >> probably about 150 billion. >> stephanie: that would be bad. okay. oh, let's see. phillip in durham disagrees with everything i say. about everything? >> ever! >> stephanie: hi, phillip. >> caller: hi, stephanie. look. appreciate the show. i think you have not been fair to the facts and let me just ask you from the -- what we're talking about -- >> stephanie: the facts are oversensitive in my opinion. >> caller: that's why you're better as a comedian than a political pundit. >> stephanie:
on the fiscal cliff negotiations. >> increasing tax rates draws money away from our economy that needs to be invested in our economy to put the american people back to work. it's a wrong approach. >> stephanie: which one was that? >> that was six. >> stephanie: okay. no, i wanted 8. >> the white house spends three weeks trying to develop a proposal and they send one up here that calls for $1.6 trillion in new taxes. calls for a little -- not even $400 billion in cuts and they want to have this extra spending that's actually greater than the amount they're willing to cut. it was not a serious proposal. >> not serious. >> so right now we're almost nowhere. >> stephanie: here's the reason why we're almost nowhere. [ ♪ "world news tonight" ♪ ] boehner declines to name certain entitlement cuts. asked what specific cuts over the fiscal cliff he pointed reporters to previous budgets declining to name further -- >> stuff. >> stephanie: then he said there is a stalemate because -- >> stalemate. do not put anything on the
, the sooner we can avoid the fiscal cliff. obama and his allies are less willing to look at these benefits programs after his election last month. >> yeah. >> stephanie: obama possesses far more leverage than he did in the budget talks with boner last year. here we go again, right. >> you act like you won or something. >> stephanie: okay. all right. rhone in chicago. >> caller: hi, stephanie. first time caller so i'm glad i get a chance to get in and talk with you. >> stephanie: okay. >> caller: so many things to talk about, but i wanted to talk about the extremism that i see in the republican party. for me i'm an infantry officer, a software engineer. i have gone from voting republican and i lose myself as moderate republican, and conservative democrat somewhere in that -- >> stephanie: in the nuggety center. >> caller: yeah. the way this election has gone it has turned me very much to the left. the way the republicans have acted, they are turned me off from their party all together. >> stephanie: we welcome you into the soft cocoon of socialism. [♪ mysterious music
released his counterproposal on the fiscal cliff that grover norquist is still very much in charge of the republican party. republicans said once again that they were absolutely unwilling to raise tax rates on the wealthiest of americans. even though they were adopted in 2001 as a temporary measure only because we had a surplus. they were temporary because ten years later, we might have a surplus. we might need the money. that's exactly the situation is today. but sadly, it is not grover norquist or mitt romney or mitch mcconnell that's running the republican party. it is still a big lobbyist by the name of grover norquist. have a good one folks!
the road. not that far down the road but get into 2013, get the fiscal cliff thing behind us. why? >> i think tom coburn and the president have slightly different reasons for it. but the problem with just doing tax reform when you don't have the rates going back up is that these deductions and credits that we're going to have to go after to reform, they primarily benefit people at the top. but they also benefit middle-class families. and if you just change those then what you end up doing is raising taxes on middle-class families as well. to get the same amount of revenue. in other words, if you're trying to get a revenue target, let's say $1.6 trillion which is what the president wants. you try to do that just by reforming the code, without the rates. you don't touch the rates. the only way to do it is to get the money out of the middle class. the president doesn't want to do that and most people don't want to do that. but if you let the rates go back up, you're basically halfway to your revenue target and you can
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5